And we march on (4/24/2017)

And so the Nation marched for science, scientists, science funding and last but not least for Earth Day.  Yes, we marched as well.  No, we did not go to Washington DC this time but we marched in Norfolk.  Our very lame excuse was that the march ended up at the O’Conner’s microbrewery, which brews some of my favorite beer, like I needed an excuse to visit their tasting room again. 

Marching down Granby Street in Norfolk in the name of Science, Curiosity and Earth Day!

Get-together after the march at O'Connors microbrewery

Whatever my excuse was guys, marching and letting our voices heard was important, and maybe showing up in Norfolk was more important than doing so in DC.  Here we could show that the concern was nationwide, as it should be.  The concern is even more urgent so close to the Chesapeake Bay.  Science should not be a partisan thing; neither should be a concern for mother earth, or as I have called it in a previous post: our Blue Marble.  What concerns me is all this talk about future generations when we talk about saddling future generations up with economic debt, but very few want to address the fact that we are saddling future generations up with environmental debt. 

As I mentioned in previous posts these discussions are not new.  Malthus (1798) predicted that we would have to deal with over population and the resulting man-caused disasters (see my previous post about that <here>).  Others claimed it is our world and we can do with it what we want.  Western man’s dominion of nature is as old the bible itself.  But it was Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who articulated this when he claimed that we needed to use science and technology to reclaim our “dominion over creation”; something we had lost when Adam and Eve were "kicked" out of the Garden of Eden.  As I wrote in a May 11, 2016 blog post, John Locke took this a few steps further, and asserts that nature itself has no intrinsic value, but that nature only gains value when we work it.  

This is completely contrary to some of the work I did some 20 years ago which was called "natural resources damage assessment" or NRDA.  One of the questions asked in NRDA is about what the enjoyment of nature is worth to you (the public) personally.  It was particular important in cases like oil spills.  The question became how much enjoyment did that take away from you, because you could not spend time on that beach, or fish?  This goes into the equation to calculate the amount of fines that are being assessed to companies that damage the environment like BP when the had the spill in the Gulf.  If we would follow John Locke's logic the ocean may not be worth anything, or for that matter neither would the Chesapeake Bay.  Or maybe since we are mining it we have dominion over it and we can pollute it to our heart's content.

I think this strange logic is still out there, 500 years later.  Or is it 2000 years later?  Some people still think we can do to the earth what ever we want.  They think we own it.  There is still this thought that any problem can eventually be solved by science, a somewhat Baconeque point of view.  

Instead of seeing nature as a subordinate or worthless, we should have a sense of awe and wonder over nature, and a belief that we humans are part of it.  This is why we were marching this past Saturday, not only to solve these issues by science but to understand the issues (and maybe help with a solution).  By understanding them we maybe able to avoid worsening some of them or avoid starting new ones.  

On a final note, what encouraged my wife and I the most was that during our walk, some of the walkers were actually picking up garbage and eventually deposited the garbage in a dumpster that the found on our route.  They were actually cleaning up the environment as we walked, leaving the world a better place.

Speeches before the start of the march in Norfolk, just an interesting juxtaposition showing that science is apolitical

Charlottesville (3/30/2015) ... or about man's dominion over nature.

Monday included another afternoon road trip, this time to Charlottesville for a class I'll be teaching tomorrow.   It was a strange day that started out with a migraine and I was dragging.   Waiting for ever thing to settle down and the pain killer to work, I picked up a book that I've been working through on environmental justice (see the tab on my blog about books I've been reading for the title).  I am reading this book because of an interest I have in how to sell conservation in particular to people who are more cavalier about environmental protection.   I am very passionate when I teach and hopefully I can convert one or two persons and make them respect and protect the natural environment, but I am still frustrated that some people still don't get it.

Reading the book I hit the point on the so called idea that man has been given dominance over the natural environment by our Christian god (Genesis 1:26).  Being a Pantheist, I believe in the Devine in everything and in humans being part of it and not in charge of it.  But, I have often wondered how this thing about human dominion all got started, in particular since that attitude could be so destructive to the environment.  The authors of the chapter I was reading credits John Locke (1623-1704) for this notion, but reading a biography of Locke, it seems that he built on the philosophy of Francis Bacon, who interpreted the bible in such a way.  Granted this was all thought up in the 17th century and we did not know about photosynthesis,  evolution and other great scientific discoveries.

Locke had some other  interesting ideas.  He believed that "Land that is left wholly to Nature, that hath no improvement of Pasturage, Tillage, or Planting is called, as indeed it is, waste, and we shall find the benefit of it amount to little more than nothing"  (Locke 1694, Second Treatise, Sec. 42-43).  In other words, nature itself was worthless and had no function.  Not the brightest idea, but on the other hand, Locke did have some great ideas on religion (tolerance) and private property, and some of his ideas were championed in the Americas.   It seems that Thomas Jefferson was a reader of Locke; and wow, here I find myself in Charlottesville the home of Jefferson.

Locke calculated that improved land derives 99 to 99.9 percent of its value from cultivation rather than from the land itself.  This philosophy still permeates part of our economic system and explains our relationship with nature and public land.

With this notion we are ignoring that:

1. Nature's inherent value apart from human utility,
2. Nature has a psycho-spiritual value,
3. Nature's ability to create (wildlife, natural resources but also oxygen, clean water),  
4. Humans are part of nature.

One of Locke's ideas was about waste.  He be lived that no one should enmass more property than he needed.  Man should not waste land and what he grows from the land; otherwise he had to share is excesses.  So Locke was a property guy who had somewhat socialistic tendencies before socialism was invented.  The biographer tells us that this notion was easily abandoned by Locke's followers with the invention of money.  Now the excess crops, milk or meat could be sold and would not go to waste (the birth of capitalism).

The photo below was taken at Monticello.   I got there 45 minutes before closing and the ticket police would not allow me to go for a short walk in the woods without paying.   Like I would be able to make it all the way up to the mansion in that time and take the free tour.  Oh well.  At least I got to look at the green roof above the gift store.  It is amazing how at least part of our society is finally understanding that Locke was just a reflection of the level of science at time he lived, and that nature has a function and value.  I think it would have been something Thomas Jefferson would have embraced; however, he would probably have grown crops on the roof.